Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jimmy the Squid]

Is it that important what is causing the climate change (that is the term I am using as I don't give a shit about the cause)? We're at a point where if the world is getting significantly hotter because of the pollution we create then we have a responsibility to not only reduce the amount of shit we pump into the atmosphere (as well as everywhere else) but to figure out if there is not a way for us to slow the heating (these could be the same things). We're also at a point where even if the world is just getting hotter as part of a global warming/cooling cycle (I've heard people say that we're still on the tail end of the last Ice Age which is why it's heating up), that cycle could end up being very bad for us as a species and we should look at (and you know, enact) ways of either trying to slow that heating or at least to try to not speed it up.

Either way we're going to be running out of things to power the machines that keep us at the temperature we like being at sooner or later. We should try to look into that maybe?

[Leonidas]

Is it that important what is causing the climate change (that is the term I am using as I don't give a shit about the cause)? We're at a point where if the world is getting significantly hotter because of the pollution we create.....

But Jimmy, that's the point. We're not!

If anything the raise (and cooling) of global temperatures have more to do with solar cycles.







You're being made to feel guilty and paying for the pleasure. Governments and business are making a fortune off of palying on people's guilt. It's really as simple as that. The vasst vast majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere is caused naturally. From everything to volcanic emmissions to dying plant material. NOT because you drive your car to work and use a dishwasher to get your dishes clean. Human CO2 emmissions only account for a tiny percentage of the CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. It's an absolute con.

All you have to do is look at Al Gore. The world's greatest climate change advocate. A man seen by many as an American hero and modern day prophet. The fact that his own expendature of energy from his mansion and jaunts around the world in private jets seem to make a mockery of what he stands for. The fact he's made millions from selling his powerpoint presentation DVD around the world and money from his own company, Generation Investment Management (which he set up two years before The Convenient Truth), which again makes money from the guilt people feel over global warming selling carbon credits (whatever the flyging f*** they are).

It's all bullshit and you're being taken for a ride. We all are.

[Chesire Cat]

Wow Leonidas that is very convincing.  Throwing tonnes of respect your way, just so you know.  I mean Im not really going to write global warming off as a myth, rather you have convinced me to take a more Agnostic approach.  Maybe it is being caused by us, maybe not, our limited science and limited history on this earth dont allow us enough information to inconclusively prove it.  Though I maintain a global change in temperature either direction on the spectrum is likely to be a bad thing.

But right or wrong Id still rather err on the side of caution, not speaking strictly in Greenhouse Gas terms, but in general environmental terms.  The worlds been here millions of years before we started significantly dump pollution into the atmosphere and oceans and pretty much everywhere.  I cant but think it's making a negative effect, and after all life as we know it on earth started off as a chemical anomaly set to very very strict climatic values.  Anything that MIGHT affect that, even if its warmer, or colder, cant be good for all life on this planet, animals have spent thousand to millions of years adapting to the world as it is, not the world as it may become. 

[Ozymandias]

Goddamn this thread.

[Leonidas]

Chesire Cat, that's the thing. I'm not trying to convince anyone that man-made climate change doesn't exist. The fact is we just don't know enought about it. As much as some people will pull out all this evidence to support the claim that we will all be doomed in 100 years time, there is also a weight of evidence to prove that man has very little if any influence over the world's weather conditions. That's the thing, we just don't know. The point is that the debate is not over, despite what so many catastrophists would have us believe.

Bringing the climate change issue down to an individual level in terms of responsibility however is wrong. I should not be made to feel guilty (and made to pay over the odds/suffer increased government legislation for the privilage) because I choose to drive a car rather than cycle and that occasionally I don't recycle as much as I could. To do so is a tactic that has been used for years by all major religions in order to make money, and this is nothing different. Guilt pays.

Of course we should all take more responsibility for the way we lives our lives, but don't be allowed to be made to feel guilty about it. not when climate change hero's such as Al Gore produces far more CO2 with his mansion and jetting all over the world in his private jet in order t recieve awards (which is nothing more than good advertising) in a year that you or I would probably produce in a lifetime.

Also, be aware of the fact that if the UK were to stop tomorrow and never start again. No more factories, no more planes or cars, no more washing machines etc etc.... In the developing world of India and China the slack created would be taken up within about 4 days. You or I have no power here to make any significant change. People like to believe that on an individual level they can, but they can't.

[Chesire Cat]

Yes but not limiting our impact to climate change, its good for the soul to do things like recycling or biking.

Its like working out, you will feel better for it.  Even if it doesnt make a difference in the realm of "North America is fat" etc

[RedLion]

Actually, Leonidas, if you looked for information at any other sources than the ones that blatantly pander to your predetermined view on the matter, you'd know that it's been proven and reported on numerous times in scientific journals that solar temperature increases on the scale that you've shown on the graph would only increase the temperature on earth by .01 degree Celsius. The earth has warmed by much, much more than that.

Further, the scientists who you said have a vested interest in propagating the existence of Global Warming--none of the scientists on the IPCC are paid by their government, or any other government for that matter. A large number of them volunteered. Some were asked to. A few well-known skeptics were asked to join the panel, and each and every one of them declined. If they believe so strongly that it's a hoax, why wouldn't they go to the main body debating the issue and present their case?

Have you even looked at the IPCC reports of the last ten years? Or have you just decided that you already know that it's going to be false and full of lies because you know the topic so much better than hundreds of the world's top scientists?

Also, your graphs contradict themselves. Some show the world cooling now, some show it warming, but not by as much as most conventional graphs or temperature increases show. For example, your first one shows a sudden drop in temperature at the beginning of this year; your 5th one shows a skyrocketing heatwave, though not above the peak further back in the graph. Your data doesn't even correlate. Cardinal rule of science: you can't take one aspect of a graph or of research that corresponds and ignore the parts that contradict each other.

Further, I don't know what world you're living in, but in America no governments or businesses are making money off of the reality of global warming, aside from some upstarts in the green technology field and some subsidies for solar and wind companies. We're in massive debt and many companies are being shut down because they can't afford the cost of energy. Businesses are losing money at a rate not seen in decades.

You can revel in your conspiracy theories all you want, but there's a severe lack in logic and scientific correlation in your arguments, and the fact that when someone calls you out on it you resort to banally shrieking about being labeled a "heretic" and such just proves it. I know it's "cool" to go against what's accepted by others, but pick your battles.

Really, the way you're acting is indecipherable from people who rant about 9/11 conspiracies.

[Ozymandias]

Jews cause global warming.

CASE CLOSED.

[StMonkey]

I'd see a band called Furious Nerds. Ironically, they would play children's music.

[KharBevNor]

Leonidas claims that the University of Alabama is more of an authority on global climate change than NASA.

[Ozymandias]

He doesn't have any case, really.

Most silly lawsuits are thrown out. You hear about the litigious nature of American culture, but it doesn't really have a lot of weight. There's a lot of lawsuits that go around, but the really dumb ones never end up succeeding.

(If anyone bring up the McDonald's coffee lady, you're wrong. That was a legitimate lawsuit.)

[Slick]

You don't always sue for damages, presumably he could be suing Gore to stop promoting something he perceives as untrue as fact.

[RedLion]

That would be laughed out of court. You can't get an injunction to get someone to stop saying something, unless it's libel. The constitution explicitly allows the right of people to say almost anything, whether someone else perceives it as untrue or not. So there's nothing preventing the dude from arguing his own line; it's just that no one believes him and he's pissed.

[Scrambled Egg Machine]

How can you sue someone for saying  things you perceive as untrue when it is largely political stuff Gore is saying. It's all relative with the exception of the science.

[Ozymandias]

You can't. You can go through all the motions of the suit, but once it hits anyone with authority, it'll be thrown out.

[Jimmy the Squid]

Is it that important what is causing the climate change (that is the term I am using as I don't give a shit about the cause)? We're at a point where if the world is getting significantly hotter because of the pollution we create.....

But Jimmy, that's the point. We're not!

If anything the raise (and cooling) of global temperatures have more to do with solar cycles.

It's all bullshit and you're being taken for a ride. We all are.

Uh, I think you might need to re-read my post man. I was saying that the reason for this climate change is irrelevant and whatever the reason is we should be doing something about it.

[öde]

You or I have no power here to make any significant change. People like to believe that on an individual level they can, but they can't.

How come you're so pessimistic? Besides, we have more power together, hence countries and unions and such, and things like the Kyoto Protocol. Plus it doesn't matter if you think you make a difference or not, you're responsible and accountable for your own actions and you should be the change you want to see in the world. I hope you don't really think you're helpless.

[Ozymandias]

Guys, here are my personal beliefs:

I believe that humans have an impact on the environment that is too complex to measure accurately.
I believe that part of this impact may result in an effect on the global climate.
I believe that a large part of climate change is not a result from that.
I believe that the solution to climate change isn't in conservation, but in better science.
I believe that we should consider the possibility that we are going to have to radically change our lives in the future to live well.
I believe that the human race survives, no matter what. (Short of the Large Hardon Collider creating a black hole that kills us all)
I believe in Harvey Dent.

Here is what I do:

I walk everywhere.
I use energy saving everygoddamnthing.
I turn off all extraneous electronics and lights.
I water plants sparingly (this is more a New Mexican issue, but whatever).
I support conservation and alternative energy with my votes.
I travel as little as possible and always in carpools.

Why do I do this when I don't believe it's the answer or possibly not even the cause?

Because I'd be a major league dick if I were wrong(and it also saves an ass-ton of money).

I don't understand why people can't just do things because it's a good thing to do without being a dick about it.

[pwhodges]

I believe that we should consider the possibility that we are going to have to radically change our lives in the future to live well.
I believe that the human race survives, no matter what.

This is the point.  There is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing in a way that will seriously impact human society (especially at sea-level); whether humans caused or drive this change is somewhat beside the point.  The important thing is to understand that unless we put flexibility back into being human, lots of people, and hence global society, will be hurt by these changes.  Humans have survived and spread by being flexible, which means acknowledging their interaction with their environment; the humans that survive may well be those that don't require piped water and energy to live.

Paul

[öde]

Ozy is a major factor in global warming because he's so hot.

[Oerdin]

Just saw this on another forum, posted by a fellow who is clearly not a fan of Al Gore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKVkgY45eLU

I was struck by the part about there being 30,000 scientists, and supporting the scientists are 9,000 PHD researchers. Wait, so if only a fraction of the "scientists" have doctorates, what exactly is their definition of a scientist? I mean, is every tom-dick-and-harry with a vested interest in the global warming debate considered a scientist?

Given that bit of hand waving, I'm rather leery of the "9000 PHd researchers" bit too. I mean, I'm sure they really do have 9000 people with PHds lined up, but PHds in what?

Just more denialist junk the same as the creationists put out.

[Jimmy the Squid]

I think the thing to remember is that if we're not careful, we could end up in a Waterworld situation. I don't think anyone wants that, do you?

[Oli]

I think that's a double edged sword really. I mean, sure it'd be like we were starring in waterworld for eternity, but it would also mean that every copy of waterworld would have been destroyed.

[Leonidas]

No one is arguing that the earth doesn't undergo natural climate change. Geological and biological activity over geological time scales have changed the composition of the atmosphere to a great degree, causing warming and cooling, ice ages, etc. However, the scientific consensus on global warming is that it doesn't fit the pattern of past climate change. Also, consider that the data used to determine that the climate changed in the past is the same data that supports the theory of global warming.

Since when has it been scientific consensus? I've already stressed and explained that in no way is the theory of man made global warming a definate.

Arguing that global warming is natural because the climate was different in the past is just a red herring.

No. It is in fact a precedent. Proof that the temperature has always changed and always will. Long before man had any influence over the world at all.

Also, there is evidence that there is much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than there was at the beginning of the industrial age, and that the increase in carbon dioxide is man-made because carbon from different sources has a different isotope profile.

Depends on where you get your sources. I've read in a bumber of places that man-made CO2 in the earths atmosphere accounts for somewhere between 1-3% of the total, the rest occurring naturally.

If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, then the increase in global average temperature over recent history supports the theory that global warming is man-made. Of course, this isn't proven, but it's what the evidence supports.

Again, what evidence? There is evidence that the global temperature of the earth has cooled (hence the need to use the term climate change now) in the past 12-24 months after a period where it did rise. There is also proof (that I have already shown a glimpse of) that the earths temperature has more to do with solar activity than anything man made.

You know this is a popular conspiracy theory, right? In league with fluoridated water mind-control and 9-11 being an inside job?

Also, the fact that governments are capitalizing on global warming hysteria to pass laws and increase taxes has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimacy of global warming. It speaks more to the fact that our government acts in its own interests rather than that of its people. It's fine to believe in an unpopular cause, but at least do it for a good reason.

Actually it has a lot to do with the legitimacy of global warming. I can't overly comment on the American or Canadian goverments as I'm in the UK. The the whole thing is as cynical as hell. Governments treat us like idiots and they are hardly beyond using any means possible to use any chance they can get to increase their level of intrusion into our lives and ring more money out of us. This Global Warming panic is an absolute God-send for big business and governments alike. Especially as anyone who dares question their motives and the legitimacy of the global warming argument is ignored and ridiculed as someone who would kill us all!!!!

Again, I say: So what? Setting aside the fact that you're not offering any evidence that the government is participating in a conspiracy to defraud the public and just appealing to cynicism, how exactly does this invalidate the science? I mean, if I take advantage of a downpour to gouge people on the price of my umbrellas for sale, does it change the fact that it's raining?

Well, what if it wasn't actually raining but you could convince people that it was, and also convince them that it was their own fault? You bombard them with so called sicentific proof and feel off their guilt and then go and introduce an umbrella tax of course.

Also, your graphs contradict themselves. Some show the world cooling now, some show it warming, but not by as much as most conventional graphs or temperature increases show. For example, your first one shows a sudden drop in temperature at the beginning of this year; your 5th one shows a skyrocketing heatwave, though not above the peak further back in the graph. Your data doesn't even correlate. Cardinal rule of science: you can't take one aspect of a graph or of research that corresponds and ignore the parts that contradict each other. 

You're missing the point, which is of course that the argument about global warming/climate change is far from over and far from proven. The point is that there is so much so called evidence out there that contradicts other sources. And it's not my data. I didn't perform any scientific research with which to come to any conclusions.

Leonidas claims that the University of Alabama is more of an authority on global climate change than NASA.

I don't remember claiming anything of the sort. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make claims against myself which are untrue.

[jhocking]

You might not take Penn and Teller to be the most scientific, and as everything and everyone there is a bias. Still, it's amusing.

Thank you for introducing me to this show, some of the other episodes are hilarious. The hippies in the dolphin episode were so ridiculous, and the bit in the immigration episode where they had illegal immigrants build a wall and then race to the other side was amazing.

[Johnny C]

Ergh, Penn and Teller.

Funny show but really suspect from a political and ethical perspective. If you watch closely they don't really do a lot of work examining the evidence from the other side. This is apparent in the recycling episode, for example, when they interview someone from the Competitive Enterprise institute who explains why recycling is bad for everyone, and then they interview... someone who works at a recycling plant.

Awesome research guys, good work.

Wait, what's that? World Peace is bullshit? Gun control is bullshit? Secondhand smoke is bullshit? Hair is bullshit? uhhhhhhh

[Johnny C]

Seriously though, good for them for attacking America's dolphin interests. It's about time someone did something that matters to the people.

[RedLion]

ohgod this thread is back.

grow up.

[Leonidas]

It's a perfectly well mannered debate Red Lion. There were points made direct to myself and I addressed them. If you don't want to reply and want the thread to die off then just don't reply to it. Rather than throw a hissy fit about it.

[tania]

bullshit! has its moments here and there (the john edwards episode from the first season was excellent), but mostly it is a pretty silly and inaccurate show intended to be humorous. they are fucking amazing magicians though.

unrelated but kind of awesome - penn's daughter's middle name is CrimeFighter.

[jhocking]

The episode where they get people to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide is particularily great.

oo which episode is that? Back in chem lab we used to have a poster warning about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

it is a pretty silly and inaccurate show intended to be humorous

All the sequences of Penn and Teller manhandling nude models gave it away.

[Chesire Cat]

Lets talk about the environment!

[dennis]

But Jimmy, that's the point. We're not!

If anything the raise (and cooling) of global temperatures have more to do with solar cycles.

These graphs are all misleading, using cherrypicked data for anti-global-warming propaganda.

The first graph compares a second order trend to a first order trend, which has problems in itself, since the data sets aren't exactly compatible.

This link shows the data compared with a common x-axis.

They are comparing the length of a sunspot cyle (which is on the order of 12 years) to changes in land temperature (which is called a "temperature anomaly" in the graph). Land temperature readings are not "global average temperature". They pretend that the two are equivalent, but they're not.  The source paper for the graph doesn't get any more specific about how the "temperature anomaly" was recorded. The source paper also states that they didn't compare to air temp."to avoid the lag by several years of air temperatures over the oceans, due to their large heat capacity". Indeed. It's a simple matter to lag the data several years to show a correlation. Considering how butchered the axes are in the graph already, their excuse does not ring true. A trend is a trend.

The second graph is the same data as the first graph. It doesn't show any new information. They did further rejigger the x-intercepts to make the plots line up how they like. If you had actually studied the graphs, instead of uncritically accepting what these propaganda sites are feeding you, you'd have noticed this.

The third graph commits the same error as the first graph. It measures surface temperature against solar activity, rather than global average temperature. In this case, instead of the land, it's the ocean.

Know your propaganda, kids!

[edited to remove some speculation on my part]

[Oerdin]

I love how he says "We've been trying to get a debate going."

There's already been a debate. You've been proven wrong, and consequently lost.

It's the exact same tactic creationists use.

[Vendetagainst]

The episode where they get people to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide is particularily great.

oo which episode is that? Back in chem lab we used to have a poster warning about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

That was such a great joke when it first started, but God has it overstayed its welcome. [Jeph's meme shirt comes to mind here]


@Oerdin
Comparing somebody with a potentially rational argument to a creationist is just wrong. My stance is that I don't give a shit how legitimate global warming is, take every goddamn precaution because they will do the world nothing but good, but come on, mr.

[Nodaisho]

I have a question. Why has global warming suddenly become such a big topic? Isn't it the same thing as the greenhouse effect? And hasn't that been pretty accepted for more than a decade? Why now?

I honestly don't know which side I am on in regards to global warming, because I haven't taken the time to study anything for myself, and just about everyone that makes graphs has an agenda, which means I have to filter through what they want me to think to find what evidence there really is on either side, and I got tired of that after two papers last semester. What I do know is that if you go from some place up in the mountains, with little to no auto traffic, and then go down to even a city with relatively clean air, you are going to be smelling something really bad for a while. That is why I want lowered amounts of pollution, because I want those places to stay smelling good for as long as they can.

One thing that bugs me, though, is the people that talk about how they want to save the earth. That seems pretty arrogant to me, saving the earth? The earth has been around longer than us, and will be around after us, most likely. As Carlin said, the planet is fine, the people are fucked. If you are going to espouse an environmentalist point of view, don't say that you are saving the world, you are saving your own ass, if not your own, than your children's, or their children's.

edit: I think this topic needs to go to DISCUSS.

[Hat]

I agree that we are not fighting to save the Earth, life has proven to be incredibly adaptable, and will probably go on in one form or another for the next five billion years. I learned about the Greenhouse effect and the possibility it might have on raised sea levels when I was in primary school around 1995. It might only have been reaching hysteria levels lately because there have been massive trends towards corporate environmental responsability in the last five years or so, but people have been anticipating a problem for a while now.

Also attitudes towards environmentalism in general have escalated in this decade, could be because the idea of a new millenium inspires ideas of a new order and a new way of doing things, but its just speculation as to why the average man and woman in the street have been having their buttons pressed about this recently

[Catfish_Man]

So far dennis is winning this thread by actually analyzing data himself rather than just quoting.

[RedLion]

edit: I think this topic needs to go to DISCUSS.

Why? Not every "serious" thread needs to be in that forum.

Anyway, I think the reason that global warming has become a "hot" topic (C WHUT I DID?) is that the evidence has continued to mount in recent years that the changes that were predicted by the greenhouse effect have been proceeding at a pace that was not accounted for. The melting and warming has been occurring at so rapid a rate that no one's really sure if anything we do at this point is going to have an effect in stopping the potentially devastating consequences that are coming.

[dennis]

I have a question. Why has global warming suddenly become such a big topic? Isn't it the same thing as the greenhouse effect? And hasn't that been pretty accepted for more than a decade? Why now?

Global warming isn't the same thing as the Greenhouse effect. The GH effect is central to GW theory, but isn't equivalent. All the GH effect states is that certain compounds in the atmosphere cause it to retain heat, which is something that can be directly demonstrated, unlike GW theory.

GW has been a popular controvery for at least a couple of decades, but things like the recent US election campaigns, second Iraq War, high energy prices, significant weather phenomena and the rise of the internet has pulled it to the forefront. Ironically, those things are mostly fluff and speculation. Things like documented sea level rises that inundate small island nations like Tuvalu (where the .tv domain comes from) that are serious have made barely a blip. A lot of the "awareness" that people have now is simply a fad.

[KharBevNor]

Shouldn't this get moved to DISCUSS?

[Johnny C]

shouldn't you get moved to shut up

[Johnny C]

I might leave this thread here, out of spite.

[Storm Rider]

shouldn't you get moved to shut up

watch out man your lf is showing

[KharBevNor]

Man it doesn't affect me one teensy weensy eensy bit where this thread is. Calm down!

[Hat]

No, you shut up!

[Nodaisho]

Okay, so, hydrogen cars. Emit only water vapor. Promising. But here is something I wonder. I live in a fairly arid region, what happens when we get thousands of cars emitting water vapor? Seems to me that it could cause quite a notable rise in humidity and rainfall.

[Chesire Cat]

Better than toxic rain, no?

[KharBevNor]

Man, seems that living in a desert, breathing all that water vapour, letting it all escape from your house, watering plants and shit would cause a notable rise in humidity and rainfall?

[dennis]

Okay, so, hydrogen cars. Emit only water vapor. Promising. But here is something I wonder. I live in a fairly arid region, what happens when we get thousands of cars emitting water vapor? Seems to me that it could cause quite a notable rise in humidity and rainfall.

Water vapor at ground level would quickly condense as it loses heat to the surrounding air and turn into liquid water.

Also, it wouldn't be much water. It would be a simple matter to condense the exhaust in the manifold and capture the water, which could later be electrolyzed back into H2 and O2, assuming we come up with an efficient method of electrolysis. Also, I guess you could just drink it.

Wate is also a greenhouse gas.